Godites have god on their side...

If everything must have a cause, then "God" must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the cosmos/matter/energy as any unproven, self-contradicting "God".

I have no problem whatsoever believing that matter/energy exists without being created or destroyed. It only changes form.

I see no need for some "god" and see no evidence to even lead me to CONSIDER such.

 

I just got this in my email today:

It isn't the first time I've got it. So many people would agree with this above crap that even I (an outspoken atheist that has barely any christian friends, certainly not any fundie ones) am getting spammed this shit repeatedly. This isn't just a few people out of the christian religion, this is the MAJORITY of christians and the general consensus amongst them. You want to force god on our lives in places where it does not belong. Oh boo-hoo, some post office had to take down godly posters (you'd be pickiting outside their building if they had satanist one's up there)...hardly any christian puts any thought into the fact that there might actually be people living in this country that don't want our gov't tax dollars being wasted on god posters, and don't want to be hounded by religious symbols in PUBLIC FUNDED places.

My tolerance does not extend to those intolerant of others. I don't care if you want to believe in god, the boogyman, or pink flying elephants - just don't shove it in my face, legislate it in my free country, or think that your belief makes you somehow better than those who don't hold it.

 

National Motto, yeah.

Posted on our currency by a bunch of godists in the 1950s.

 

Lib, at some point in time there did not exist a single anything. Can you give one iota of something coming from nothing. Can you refute my claim that Chaos dosen't create??

God is Immaterial, Uncaused, Unchanging, and outside of time. Just like engery, yet you choose to belive in Engery? Why not God?

God = omni-everything
engery = omni-everything for the most part

Why is it so hard to belive in a something that is something similiar to engery + thought?

I think we've had this discussion before with Spirit/Soul thing.


I find it funny that my God with out a cause is a joke, while your Universe with out a cause is science?

Something else I would like to point out in your post. You want people to prove a transcendent being. Isn't part of being a transcendent anything is being beyond comprehension?

So let me get this straight. You want me to provide you evidence of something beyond comprehension? *You* know you can't prove something that lies beyond our ability to reason, to comprehend, and our ability to explian.

Some qoutes from Lib

Just suppose that every thing has a cause, then the argument is still invalid

So not everything *HAS* to have a cause? Then why msut my God have one?


If someone protests that "God" did not have a cause, we see that this person denies the first axiom, and the entire argument falls.

I have no problem whatsoever believing that matter/energy exists without being created or destroyed. It only changes form

So not everythign *HAS* a cause? How does my uncaused God argument fail? Can't this simply be something that dosen't *NEED* a cause?

 

Many people say that "God is the first cause."

But could that not also be said about the universe/Big Bang?

Use Ockham's Razor here, the principal of parsimony, which is more logical?

1: The Universe came into existance one day, or has always existed.
2: The Universe was created by God, who came into existance one day, or has always existed.

Can't they both be logical? What is the diffrence in a Universe always existing, or coming from nothing. And a "God" that always existed or came from nothing? Truth be told both are more illogical to us then logical. Take away God and basicly we have "Something *always* existed" or "Something just existed". We as humans can't fully understand how something either always existed, or just existed.

That's not entirely true. Atheists don't believe that nothing came from nothing. Obviously the Universe came from something (by your logic), right? We just don't know where it came from yet, and we cite statistics and logic that suggests that, wherever it did come from, it wasn't the Christo-Judean God.

Thanks for correcting me . But it still brings the question. Why are the people who belive in a Christo-Judean God silly because we belive thats how everything started? If what you said is true then your evidence only suggests, not disproves. And for something to be fake it must be disproved right?



Subjective philosphy is useful in talks between two or a handful or so of people.

But it is by no means "definitive" or "universal," and conclusions drawn from subjective philosophy do not apply to all people.

I stand corrected then for the most part. What I was trying to say is philosophy is isn't always objective, words and thoughts can be twisted to fit a persons needs.

 

Sad part is, they think they are doing the right thing...They take the example of Stephen from acts and go "Ah! We must be bold and yadda yadaa"....They must not of read the part where Stephen was drying out Religions bad landury.

I can't stand the "sit down shut up" part...Protest hardly ever remain violence free with a peacful agenda....A protest with "Sit down and shut up" crazy to say the least.

 

Really. How do you know? According to SCIENCE (not Kris?) matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, it is perfectly logical and scientific to believe that "something" always existed in "some" form. No need for a "God".

Secondly, the universe is full of chaos, indeed. But, small forms of order DO exist inside "chaos". That, too, is scientific AND observable in nature. But, even examples of this would lead you to claim "God did it!"...

So, "God" is immaterial? So "he" is SUBJECTIVE only? Like an "idea" or "thought" (which is also immaterial)?

Please BACK UP ALL YOUR CLAIMS of "God's" so-called attributes with EVIDENCE.

I chose to believe in energy because it exists and it IS MATTER. Ever heard of E=MC2?!?!?!?

Kris? What I "quoted" was basically a CHRISTIAN argument. The "Causal Argument". Even IF there is some "things" that don't need a cause there is STILL no reason or evidence to believe that some "God" exists because there is ZERO EVIDENCE of such a being. And you have provided none.

You "assume" some "God" exists without offering ANY reason to consider such and only by using "mysteries" of these that are "unexplained" by science (as of yet) and even some that have already been explained.

You claim all these "attributes" this "God" supposedly has without offering ANY evidence of the cohesion between all these so-called powers OR EVEN the existence of this "immaterial being" itself.

You apparently didn't know that evolution is NOT random chance.
Nor did you know that energy and matter are the same.

But, you make claims of some illogical, supernatural force with no evidence to back up that claim.

WTF??

 

I can. ^_^

There isn't necessarily a point in time where nothing existed. If this were true, then not even God would have existed. If God did exist forever, then something obviously did exist forever.

If God didn't exist forever, people say "God is the first cause," but if God didn't exist, how could he be the first cause?

You can't even conceptualize outside of time.

You're not just arguing that God is "immaterial, uncaused, unchanging, outside time."

You're arguing all these things which cannot be properly conceptualized -- your argument is literally irrational because of this.

Time is a measurement of change. God obviously changes -- maybe God's "self" doesn't change, but God (supposedly) speaks, he performs miracles, he created heaven and earth. These are all actions that involved change. A before, and an after. If God did not exist within time, how could he perform things within it?

Let's pretend that time is a dimension. God exists outside of dimensions, right? Certainly there is SOMETHING that defines what God is. In order for God to cross over the boundary into these dimensions, and have some sort of properties, there must be something TO translate into dimensional properties.

That means, God must have SOME structure, in order to have any kind of structure in our world.

Which means, God must exist in some construct that ALLOWS structure. Some kind of physics or logic, even if it's only metaphysical.

And that means, God cannot exist outside of absolutely everything.

It's logically impossible for such a God to exist.

Energy is not omnipotent. It's not all-powerful.
Energy is not omniscient. It's not all-knowing.
Energy is not omnipresent. It's not all-pervading.
Energy is not omnibenevolent. It's not all-good.

Truthfully, energy isn't omni-anything.

That's not the case.

Nobody is saying the Universe is without a cause. It probably is.

We just don't know what that cause is yet.

And to call that cause "GOD" and call it omni-max, is way more than a stretch.

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head.

How can you argue a transcendent being exists, when it's impossible to understand what trascendence actually is?

God is an absurd concept of the fallacy of human understanding.

Don't forget, Kris ...

YOU'RE the one claiming that it is beyond comprehension.

So of course we're all going to say "wtf?" and ask for you to demonstrate.

Ockham's Razor is a method for choosing the MOST logical path.

Ockham's Razor can be used to show that, the insertion of "God" into the equation, is completely trivial, and doesn't matter.

We think you're (collectively) silly because there is evidence that highly suggests against it.

It's kind of like this ...

1: The planets rotate around the sun because an unknown force causes them to.
2: The planets rotate around the sun because of unknown aliens that live on mars, which have huge brains and use the force of their brains to cause them to.

Which makes sense? The one that leaves it unexplained, or the one that "explains" it, but doesn't really explain it, and just inserts unnecessary gobbly-gook to choke people up on?

For something to be fake it must be disproved? No. For something to be fake, it must be false.

There is evidence that suggests the idea of the Christo-Judean God is highly false.

It's not proven. But it's a pretty powerful suggestion.

Just like there is evidence that gravity exists. We can't PROVE it beyond a shadow of a doubt. But there is a LOT of evidence that it does exist.

And only a silly person would believe gravity doesn't exist ... right?

 

Thanks for correcting me then.

As far the immaterial thing, perhaps incorporeal would be a better word. having no form or corporeal being. No point in me arguing science, because like you've pointed out I've got more to learn. But I can tell that I don't belive in the "Sky daddy" God. God relates more to engery then anything. I have no concrete evidence for God, and I probley never will.I simply have what I belive, for better or worse.

But I am wondering where you got the Matter Engery part. As for my Illogical supernatural force. What would that be?

 

When I said engery was omni I was speaking along the terms of appernce.
If their was a "being" of engery wouldn't it have alot of the traits of a God?

Yes, I am the one claiming that is beyond comprehension. Can you comprehend a Omni-Max being? Honestly I don't think we can. So dosen't that make him beyond comprehensive?

I don't claim, to be able to prove a God, or a Omni-Max being. And I *know* I can't make a sound argument for one right now anyways....I've stayed up to long playing WoW.

I'll admit that what I say is most of the time wrong. But I will admit that I don't know everything. Just bear with me, and don't think of me too close minded.

 

Oh yeah, other the the general questions here, I conceed defeat =P. I got more to learn, and I've gotta grind fest to do tonight in WoW

 

I don't think you and I really disagree that much then. It's just I don't refer to the vast energy as "God".

 

I don't think we disagree on much. I think my stupidity gets in the way

 

If I counted the times my stupidity got in the way, I'd spend my whole life counting.

 

Hey, Did you know Chuck Noriss counted to infinti....Twice?


btw what MA do you practice?

 

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu "Gracie"

 

JJ is pretty cool. My friend Clint (Teaches Aikido) learnt Gracie JJ in Dallas. I've got to spar with him in one ofhis Aikido classes. Its pretty cool. I tried Aikido for about a month. Its pretty fun. But I'd rather take Kempo or Ninjitsu. Sadly however all I've got around here is Aikido and Tae Kwan Do :-\

 

Well, I've got a one-on-one trainer. A personal friend who is an expert in both JJ and Aikido.

He has trained with the best.

 

I'd love to have a one-on-one trainer. Pretty lucky man

I hated doing foot work for Aikido. I *really* hated having to doing it with everyone facing a diffrent direction.

 

*shrugs* I've never seen raw energy, have you?

I think it's interesting to note here ... and I'm not trying to bash your beliefs, Kris, I just think this is worth pointing out:

You say here that God may be a being of energy.

And yet above, you say that God exists outside of all things, energy included. So how could God be a being of energy if there is no such thing as energy out there to be made from?

Beyond that -- I've never seen sentient energy. Or omni-benevolent energy. Or omni-present energy, etc. These things are the traits of your God, and energy simply does not have these traits.

How can you believe, trust, or have faith in something if you can't even comprehend its existance?

Ouch, addicted to WoW? I feel for you ... those addictions are worse than some drug addictions!

We (or at least I) don't think you're close-minded.

We just think that you're being led astray by those who ARE close-minded (which includes at least the latter half of the human population).

And believe it or not, we want to save you! Just as much as Jesus did. ^_^ Sorry if that sounds too impious ...

LOL! Hahahahah ... yeah man, for real.

Chuck Norris, he's the man.

Ah holy shit ... I saw Gracie in the Ultimate Fighting Championship ... and I watched a short video online about that whole "kick in the knee, then pivot" thing. He was pretty good at that shit ...

Isn't that martial art a combination of Brazillian Capoera and Jujutsu?